Wisconsin / Kentucky

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes. It is not a POI administration. Dead ball contact fouls are treated the same as a NF T.

Peace

thanks. so you can upgrade to a F1, F2, or Tech upon review?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

thanks. so you can upgrade to a F1, F2, or Tech upon review?

You can always upgrade a foul for contact if it fits the definition of F1 or F2. But honestly, it does not matter unless you are going to eject the player for the contact. Dead ball contact plays really do not have a bigger penalty alone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can always upgrade a foul for contact if it fits the definition of F1 or F2. But honestly, it does not matter unless you are going to eject the player for the contact. Dead ball contact plays really do not have a bigger penalty alone.

Two things are different.

1. Anyone can shoot the FTs.
2. Another T now disqualifies him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Two things are different.

1. Anyone can shoot the FTs.
2. Another T now disqualifies him.

You are right. I was only trying to reference what you call the foul. Any dead ball contact foul is a T. You could have called it based on FF1 or FF2, but they still would have been Ts.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

1. Little known NCAA rule permits the team to inbound either table side or opposite table following a technical foul, which is not POI.
2. The very rare example of offensive GT just occurred, but was not called, at 16:35 of the 2nd half.
3. Crew was rather poor on block/charge decision in the first half. Two or three fouls called blocks which were PCs, imo.

[Nevadaref]

Someone please explain to me what Pat Adams is seeing on these blocking calls.

[canuckrefguy]

Wow, today's colour commentators are making Billy Packer look good.

[Nevadaref]

5:22 left #44 from Wisconsin gets hosed on a foul call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Someone please explain to me what Pat Adams is seeing on these blocking calls.

Was he the one who called all three of those bad blocks against Jackson?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Little known NCAA rule permits the team to inbound either table side or opposite table following a technical foul, which is not POI.2. The very rare example of offensive GT just occurred, but was not called, at 16:35 of the 2nd half.
3. Crew was rather poor on block/charge decision in the first half. Two or three fouls called blocks which were PCs, imo.

In the "Ancient Days" the offended team had the choice of which Sideline at the Division Line to take the Throw-in for both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's/women's college. A number of years ago (no, I am not going to climb up into the attic, LOL!), the NFHS changed the rule to put the ball in play at the Division Line opposite the Table. But the NCAA did not adopt the change.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In the "Ancient Days" the offended team had the choice of which Sideline at the Division Line to take the Throw-in for both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's/women's college. A number of years ago (no, I am not going to climb up into the attic, LOL!), the NFHS changed the rule to put the ball in play at the Division Line opposite the Table. But the NCAA did not adopt the change.

MTD, Sr.

And now all the youngin's have the rest of the story!
Thanks for the post.

[bballref3966]

Close goaltending no-call at 16:36 in second half. Would love to get another look at it. Was on its downward flight, appeared to be above the ring, but not sure it had the possibility of entering the basket.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Close goaltending no-call at 16:36 in second half. Would love to get another look at it. Was on its downward flight, appeared to be above the ring, but not sure it had the possibility of entering the basket.

I thought it was a good call. Unless it is grossly off (it wasn't), I don't think any official would rule that it has no chance of going in.

EDIT: My comments were about the other GT was called.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I thought it was a good call. Unless it is grossly off (it wasn't), I don't think any official would rule that it has no chance of going in.

Except the opposite of your comment is what the officials did.
There was no whistle on the play and Kentucky was permitted to score.
Thus the decision must have been that the ball didn't have a chance to go in.